The Kids Were Right, [Public] School Is a Prison

by Scott Bradner

original article is found here

The school board in Sutter, Calif., and the superintendents of the Brittan Elementary School seem to want to prove that generations of students were correct when they felt that school officials cared more about confining students to classrooms than educating them. At this point the school board is well on its way to achieving that goal.

Like petty little dictators, school officials imposed a new ID system on elementary school students. Students were issued ID tags they must wear around their necks - just like in some prisons - and school officials have threatened disciplinary proceedings against any student who fails to do so. The tags include the student's name, picture, school, class year and school ID number. The tags also include an RFID chip that responds to a scanner with a student-specific serial number. As part of an initial test, the school was equipped with RFID scanners above the doors to some classrooms and bathrooms. The system was installed without any advance notice or discussion with students or parents.

School officials said the system would provide better information about attendance, which the school needs to report to the state, would let folks know if a student failed to show up for class and would help discover intruders (because they would not have ID tags). According to news reports, the school has not had a problem with truancy, so school officials seem to be fixing a problem they do not have.

Note that unless all people in the building, which includes teachers and officials, wear ID tags, it's not clear how such tags will help pinpoint intruders. But what the ID tags do is pinpoint students while in school and while walking to and from school. Sounds like an ideal enabler for someone wanting to snatch a kid - just set up an RFID scanner beside the path in the woods, and you will be told when the target kid walks by with his ID tag in his bag.

It is real bad that school officials decided to install such a system without prior discussion with parents. But what is worse has been the reaction of these school officials and their lawyer since the word got out. Instead of instantly stopping the test when parents began to complain, which is what anyone with any hint of common sense would have done, they threatened students who do not want to wear the tags.

An example of the stupidity being demonstrated was the school's lawyer offering to let some students whose parents complained wear blank tags, while insisting that the students would be disciplined if they failed to wear the useless tags. Even after the company making the system pulled out of the trial one school official said he was disappointed that the trial would not go on.

The school could get the information that it actually needed to report to the state by having students swipe a magstripe card when they entered or left the school building with far less threat to student safety and privacy. But that would be too sensible.

By the way, don't laugh at the plight of these students - your pointy-haired boss might suddenly decide that finding out when you go to the bathroom is critical to the health of your company.

Bradner is a consultant with Harvard University's University Information Systems. Reach him at sob@sobco.com.

Bush's Inaugural Address and the "Moral" Election

President Bush said in his inaugural address:

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.

This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.

Should our goal really be "to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way?" Should our money, our blood, our loved ones be spent so that others can do what they wish with the results? Should they be spent so that others can form Islamic states? Will this really result in the ending of "tyranny in our world?" The answer is emphatically "NO!" We will have only sent our loved ones to die so that we could help set up alternative tyrants. As Christians, our goal is to conform all peoples to the Word of God, not "to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way?"

The Moral Election
We have been told that this past election was won based on moral ideals, but what is the basis for America's (and the President's) present morality? The President says that "Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self. That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards, and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people." Are all of the "varied faiths of our people" equally true and valid? Again, the answer is emphatically "NO!"

The Christian's belief that Jesus is exactly who He said He is undeniably contradicts the claims of all other religions: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6 NASB). It is exactly this claim that enabled our Founding Fathers (and enables us) to be self-governed. True self-government can never exist without the saving power of Jesus, the Christ and the sactifying power of the Holy Spirit. (By the way ALL religions contradict each other in irreconcilable ways - it is impossible to have a country lead equally by all religious "truths").

R. J. Rushdoony had these wise words to say more than 5 years ago:

The new America taking shape around us is a very religious America, but its religion is humanism, not Christianity. It is a very morally minded America, but its ethics is the new morality, which for Christianity is simply the old sin. This new, revolutionary, humanistic America is also very missionary-minded. Humanism believes in salvation by works of law and, as a result, we are trying, as a nation, to save the world by law. By vast appropriations of money and dedicated labor, we are trying to save all nations and races, all men from all problems, in the hopes of creating a paradise on earth. We are trying to bring peace on earth and good will among men by acts of state and works of law, not by Jesus Christ. But St. Paul wrote, in Galatians 2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (R.J. Rushdoony, Law & Liberty)

Celebrate with a Fellow Blogger and Give a Gift of Love

by Jennifer Watson (my lovely wife)

Congratulations to Carmon Friedrich on the occasion of her one thousandth blog entry! All day long today (Monday), Carmon is celebrating by hosting a cyber-party at her blog, and everyone is invited. What makes it even more fun is that it’s also a surprise party of sorts for the guest of honor (be sure to read the whole story).

We first read of Azanou at Dave Black Online last fall (here's a link to the original story). Dr. Black is a trusted friend of the Watson family. We consider it an honor to partner with his family in a gift of love for Azanou. Please visit the blogs of these talented writers (spiritual mentors in my book), and prayerfully consider your involvement in sharing the love of Christ in a very tangible way to a young boy made in His image.

Truth or Consequences

By James N. Clymer
Constitution Party National Chairman

While listening to President Bush’s Inaugural Address and remembering the actions and policies of his administration, I was struck by the ability of politicians to numb the mind with great sounding statements that are at once frightening in their implications and without truth or Constitutional foundation.

I was reminded of two books I read far too long ago which I need to dust off and read again, George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. In fact, I believe it’s time for us all to give these classics a reread to remind us of how we can be fooled and manipulated on the road to tyranny. Just like “All animals are created equal” gets unobtrusively changed to “All animals are created equal but some are more equal than others”, so freedom and liberty become hallmarks of an administration that has people passively taking off their shoes at airport security checks, allowing Big Brother to snoop into their homes, their bank accounts their emails and their irises, and even sending our troops to die in the desert all to protect us from the big bad enemy. Remember how there always had to be an enemy in both those books? Ah, the prescience of George Orwell.

Mr. Bush’s opening statements regarding the “durable wisdom of the Constitution” and his promise to uphold his oath, are most remarkable for their difference and distance from the reality of his actions. The irony is that Mr. Bush broke his oath of office before he even finished his speech by promising to do a host of things forbidden by the Constitution he swore to uphold and defend. Yes, I say forbidden because any power not authorized by the Constitution is forbidden by it and by usurping such powers, Mr. Bush violates his oath.

It would be an exhaustive work to try to list the ways in which he has violated his oath but a few striking examples come to mind, starting with the right to life. “Americans, at our best, value the life we see in another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth”, intoned the prez. Unless of course that unwanted one hasn’t yet been born. Why the multitude of so-called pro-life conservatives believe this president is pro-life is a mystery to me.

The Animal Farm critters begin believing the falsehoods they are told (which they really know are false but can’t deal with the consequences of the truth and thus believe the lie) and the 1984 Ministry of Truth and Newspeak deludes the subjects. In like manner millions of Americans hold the president up as “the most pro-life president ever” (as one writer put it with unintended hyperbole) because they don’t want to believe the truth. Of course GW has never claimed himself to be pro-life, to desire the end of Roe v. Wade or to take any serious step toward stopping or even significantly curtailing abortions. But the pro-life perception is a lot more comforting than reality.

Of course Bush also breaks his oath with his policies that deny Americans the right “to be secure in our persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”, and “the right to keep and bear arms” as well as when he promotes the prohibiting of “the free exercise “ of religion and speech through his tolerance of tyrannical federal judges.

What concerns me is the propensity of virtually all elected officials to lie, distort the truth, give words new meanings and employ every manner of deception to aggregate power. It didn’t start with this administration. Clinton was one of the smoothest liars ever but I had the sense a lot of people knew he was lying and didn’t care. In the case of this administration, the Christians not only seem to have no inkling of the deception being foisted on them, they aid and abet in its proliferation.

Many times I have felt like Diogenes, out with my lantern searching for the honest man in the political realm, a perpetual search that goes unfulfilled.

But we must not despair. In our quest to restore the Republic of the Constitution, we must continually shine the light of truth, exposing the lies of those who would deceive us into tyranny. We must demand the highest standard of honesty among ourselves and our public servants from the local alderman to the president of the United States. We must expose their failure to live by their oath of office and demand their removal when they violate the trust of their office. It is the lack of outrage and failure to hold them accountable that has allowed such dishonesty to proliferate.

May the Constitution Party ever be the one to “raise the standard to which the wise and honest can repair, recognizing that the event is in the hand of God”.

A Surprise Endorsement for Doctrine

February 16, 2005 — Fresh Words Edition
By John Piper
Permanent Link

God gives good press to doctrine. But surveys of evangelicals usually do not—until recently. In God’s book, knowing his Son and believing true things about him is liberty. “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). God’s self-revelation in the Bible is not a wax nose. Paul calls it “the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (Romans 6:17). It’s a standard, a yardstick, a pattern. You measure truth by it. Elsewhere he calls it “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27), and the “pattern of the soundwords” and “the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Timothy 1:13-14). It does not change. Our everlasting salvation is determined by whether we believe it: “Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9). Depart from the doctrine, and you depart from Christ. Or, better, keep watch over your doctrine and “you will save . . . yourself” (1 Timothy 4:16).

That’s high praise for good doctrine. You would think evangelicals would agree. But we are more likely to hear things like, “Christ unites; doctrine divides,” or, “Ask, ‘Whom do you trust?’, not ‘What do you believe?’” The minimization of biblical doctrine is common. But if we are not willing to get a high estimation of doctrine from God, perhaps we can get it from George Barna.

He has been surveying American evangelicals to see if we practice what we preach. He is finding that we don’t preach doctrine from the Bible, and therefore don’t practice differently from the world. For example, he says that evangelicals divorce at about the same rate as the nation at large. Only 9 percent of evangelicals tithe. Of 12,000 teenagers who took the pledge to wait for marriage, 80% had sex outside marriage in the next 7 years. Twenty-six percent of traditional evangelicals do not think premarital sex is wrong. White evangelicals are more likely than Catholics and mainline Protestants to object to having black neighbors.

According to Barna’s definition an “evangelical” is willing to say, “I have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in my life today.” In addition, they agree with several other things like: Jesus lived a sinless life; eternal salvation is only through grace, not works; Christians have a personal responsibility to evangelize non-Christians; Satan exists. Barna says that 7 to 8 percent of the US population is in this group. And they do not live substantially differently than the world.

But Barna has now developed a new set of criteria that defines a group within evangelicalism who has a “biblical worldview.” This means they say that “the Bible is the moral standard” and “absolute moral truths exist and are conveyed through the Bible.” In addition they believe that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator who still rules the universe, and that salvation cannot be earned by their deeds, and that the Bible is totally accurate in all it teaches. This group is substantially smaller than the broad evangelical group.

For those who belittle doctrine as troublesome, it may come as a surprise that this group lives differently from the world. Ronald Sider, in his new book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, describes the difference:

They are 9 times more likely than all the others to avoid ‘adult-only’ material on the Internet. They are 4 times more likely than other Christians to boycott objectionable companies and products and twice as likely to choose not to watch a movie specifically because of its bad content. They are 3 times more likely than other adults not to use tobacco products and twice as likely to volunteer time to help needy people. Forty-nine percent of all born-again Christians with a biblical world view have volunteered more than an hour in the previous week to an organization serving the poor, whereas only 29 percent of born-again Christians without a biblical world view and only 22 percent of non-born-again Christians had done so.

The conclusion is that doctrine matters. Sider puts it like this:

Barna’s findings on the different behavior of Christians with a biblical worldview underline the importance of theology. Biblical orthodoxy does matter. One important way to end the scandal of contemporary Christian behavior is to work and pray fervently for the growth of orthodox theological belief in our churches.

Who would have thought that the very survey system that lures so many to put their finger in the wind of opinion would tell them, Take your finger down and teach the people what the Bible says?

I'm Back

Just in case anyone was wondering why there has been a HUGE laps in posts, it is because I have been on vacation.

I plan to add more posts soon. I also have been working on my Freedom and the Law article, so that is taking up more time than I anticipated.

A Quiet Threat to Homeschooling

by Lee Duigon

Will homeschooling Christian parents be compelled to teach their children to embrace “safe sex,” abortion on demand, and moral relativism?

It sounds absurd, but it could happen tomorrow, next month, or anytime. The proposal is on the table, waiting for a judge to pick it up.

Children have a constitutional right to learn about beliefs and ways of life other than those of their parents, and the state has a duty to secure that right for them.

So argued Rob Reich, political science and education professor at Stanford University, at the 2001 convention of the American Political Science Association, reading from a paper entitled, “Testing the Boundaries of Parental Authority over Education, the Case of Home Schooling.” He included the paper as a chapter in his 2002 book, Bridging Multiculturalism and Liberalism in Education.

As dry and academic as that seems, Reich’s new children’s “right” has attracted the notice of America’s education elite. “Reich’s material is being read and referenced,” reported Home Education Magazine News & Commentary recently. “He has the ear of the media.”

In his writings, Reich proposes that homeschooling should be monitored by the state to ensure that parents teach their children beliefs and lifestyles that they may oppose — that parents may even believe to be evil.

One lawsuit brought to the right court — the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, for instance, (famous for declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional) — could allow a judge to rule that Professor Reich is right, that children do have a right to learn beliefs and behaviors opposed to those of their parents. And if the parents refuse to teach them such, then the court may order them to secure their children’s “rights” by sending them to public school.

“We see that danger,” says Thomas Washburne, J.D., of the Home School Legal Defense Fund. “You might see it come up in a case where homeschooling parents demonstrably failed to educate a child. Some advocacy group might file a suit and try to mount a case for the child. They might claim the child has this right Reich has identified, and the judge might agree.”

In a recent Amazon.com reader review of Reich’s book, the reviewer declared, “The leading goal of education is to develop autonomy in children.”

Reich was quoted in Home Education Magazine News & Commentary* as saying: “The state has a role of promoting the independent interest of children, including the right to live a life other than that their parents lead.”

These astounding statements — are we to believe that until today’s hip educators came along, children were doomed to be carbon copies of their parents? — show that Reich’s ideas have fallen upon fertile ground.

Reich asserts, “Children are owed as a matter of justice the capacity to lead lives—adopt values and beliefs, pursue an occupation, endorse new [sic] traditions—that are different from those of their parents. Because the child cannot … ensure the acquisition of such capacities and the parents may be opposed … the state must ensure it for them” (emphasis added).

“It is at this point that we can begin to see the implications, indeed danger, of Reich’s ideas for home education,” Washburne says.

Reich has also written, “Neither parents nor the state can justly attempt to imprint indelibly upon a child a set of values and beliefs.”

Are you listening, Christian parents? Consider Biblical injunctions, such as:

“And ye shall teach them (God’s words) [to] your children … (Dt. 11:19), or “Train up a child in the way he should go …”(Pr. 22:6). To obey these injunctions, in Reich’s view, would be unjust.

Yet he argues that state interference in home education may be necessary to secure the children’s religious freedom: “[T]he state cannot relinquish its regulatory role in education in cases where parents invoke their religious beliefs as a bulwark against secular authority” (emphasis added). Translation: homeschooling is okay, as long as you don’t teach your children to be Christians.

“What Reich is doing,” Washburne says, “is setting an academic framework by which an activist
judge might rule in favor of heavy restrictions on home education.”

What is the purpose of Reich’s proposals?

Says Washburne, “The education elite sees homeschoolers as traditional moralists, raising their children to be traditional moralists. They teach their children truth — truth that the elite doesn’t believe in, doesn’t recognize. It drives them crazy that they can’t get at these homeschooled children.”

For many parents, the whole point of homeschooling is to get their children out of the public schools and away from corrupt ideas and values. Now Reich proposes that these corrupt ideas be brought into the home by the parents themselves — or else.

“It’s been quiet so far this year,” Washburne says, “but Reich’s ideas are out there. We’re waiting to see if anyone tries to implement them.”

Perhaps Christian parents ought to start planning what they will do if an activist judge rules that their children have a “right” to be taught Practical Paganism 101. From the view of this writer, it’s only a matter of time before such an answer will be needed.

For more information, contact the Home School Legal Defense Fund, (540) 338-5600.

* In an earlier version of this web article, Chalcedon incorrectly attributed to Home Education Magazine News and Commentary its quote of Rob Reich. Their intent was, like ours, to alert Christians to the danger of Reich's position. We apologize for the error.

Lee Duigon is a businessman and free lance writer from New Jersey. The original article can be found here.